Jump to content

mfbukowski

Contributor
  • Content count

    25,440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12,550 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

5,789 profile views
  1. BYU Caffeine is APPROVED - Breaking news!

    Now THAT would be tough in bronze......
  2. BYU Caffeine is APPROVED - Breaking news!

    In our stake we have one bishop with a beard and two high council members, and many many ward council attendees, but no sisters with beards. Clearly we still have to work on that one.
  3. Curious about cafeteria doctrines

    On the other hand, I personally feel no discomfort in harboring beliefs which OTHERS may think are incompatible, the objective "correctness" of which is unknowable. An example is a world-wide flood. Words are ambiguous. What is a "world"? We use it to describe the "Wonderful World of Disney". We describe "my little world" or "In his world it's ok because ........" Was the world created in 6 days? Is it logically possible? Bertrand Russell knew it was possible though ridiculously unlikely. If my world view shifts dramatically in a few days, has my little world been made anew in 6 days? When we think in parables, one might discuss the Tower of Babel story as making the same point as my siggy below makes about language being "confounded" so that we cannot discuss spiritual things. The idea of "language games" in Wittgenstein can be seen as a "confirmaton" of that story. So if I teach the confounding of languages in church in terms of the Tower of Babel, am I "compartmentalizing" if I am actually teaching Wittgenstein or Rorty in my mind? Are they "different ideas"? Obviously that depends on the language game of the discussion. We have to teach to the understanding of others for communication to happen! I think it is possible to have a Mormon systematic theology if that includes the concept of language games in scriptural hermeneutics. There are many possible interpretations of any sentence, and that ambiguity is amplified in scripture. In short that is why I think orthopraxis is the key.
  4. Curious about cafeteria doctrines

    As it should not be! Church is not for apologetics or polemics for one position or another- it is for worship and mutual edification in harmony about the BASICS of the gospel- matters upon which we all agree. Suppose one knew that one was in the minority on a political opinion within a specific group of people, say, at party. Apologetics at church is like debating politics at a cocktail party with your boss and co-workers- it's just rude and out of place! It violates the purpose of the gathering.
  5. Curious about cafeteria doctrines

    You don't believe the bear story? Heretic! You must still have hair then. Them there brats deserved it.
  6. Don't ask me, question the temple account. To me that's like asking why water is required to have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That is what we call water. That's just the way it works Do it any other way and you don't have the same result.
  7. There you go. And they were Kolobites right?
  8. Then why did you say dinosaurs are still with us??? As "fried chicken"? Oh my gosh. Go back and read that section of the thread. You contradicted yourself, I posted both comments next to each other and you still didnt get it Nevermind- forget about it.
  9. Good summary of evolution! Note that God "calls" these creatures and days into existence. He starts the ball rolling and when the process is finished he "calls" ("pronounces"/"defines") the evening and morning "The First Day" He gives the process a New Name. Is "man" on the earth? Why would he ask? Like he doesn't know? No he is underlining the point that there is something special going on here that is different than the usual process, whatever there is is not "Man"- the process is not yet finished THEN "Man" and "Woman" is formed, and defined and pronounced finished and defined and receives his New Name. The process has no importance- only the finished result is important to the plan. You put the genes in the blender and bake until it's done and THEN take it out of the oven before it burns. I must be hungry. I like Star Trek because its basic premise is that after evolution on all these planets everyone comes out with two arms, legs, one head, a tongue that speaks, and "human" consciousness. I have often thought that you give a system with the right information and conditions and give it a long enough time, you will naturally come out with the same result, or at least that is what I am thinking when I am liking Star Trek. Put coal in the dirt and bury them long enough, control the external conditions, and you get diamonds. Spin off enough elements in the big bang and give it a few billion years and bingo- "is man on the earth (yet)?" i mean why did he say that otherwise? And who can disprove that happens with planets? And where does one get planets with identical conditions? But maybe it's a story and Star Trek is wrong. It doesn't really matter much does it?
  10. In Praise of the Cafeteria Mormon

    Walking through the room with the TV on to a soap opera. (Of course i was not watching....) The secular version of guilt, repentance and atonement: "I'd do anything to take that back! I just have to do whatever I can to make it good, forgive myself and move on with life- What else can I do??"
  11. In Praise of the Cafeteria Mormon

    Best post you have ever made! It's not really picking and choosing as much as it is having a testimony of certain principles and not others. That is why I harp on orthopraxis so much. If you can truthfully in good conscience pass a temple recommend interview- what is it- 10 questions?- then you are a Mormon in full fellowship. Do you have a testimony of principle x? Yes or no? No discussion about what that means, how strong the testimony is or the nuances of meaning of those statements. It's between you and your God.
  12. Yes, that's what I said. So Homo Erectus then are "still around today" right? Because we are their descendants?
  13. Secret Combinations

    I have a combination lock stuck on a cabinet and I have forgotten the combination. Does that qualify?
×